I'm currently enrolled in a doctoral seminar that met at Oxford University in England. The class explores communication styles of C.S. Lewis. This post, and others like it, are part of a writing assignment to create three contemporary Screwtape Letters. I hope you will take advantage of this unique view into the world where demons plot the demise of Those Who Love God. Enjoy!

Screwtape is on trial in the Supreme Abyss of Hell. His suave young nephew, Wormwood, leaned in to prosecute at a table prepared “in the presence of [Screwtape’s] enemies” but, “goodness and mercy” were not present. The charges included a class action petition from the Werewolves whose entitlements at the Halloween dinner were invaded. They claim damages in that they are merely cursed; but were illegally categorized with the undead. Apparently the undead simply consume, not careful about who they eat. Screwtape’s hasty prosecution was indifferent to the Rule. A more serious charge was filed: Ambiguous Injuries to Hell. That means no one knows the charge yet.Action in the courtroom started when the bailiff shouted, “BY WHOSE NAME WILL YOU SWEAR? By whose name shall it be? Bacchus? Ishtar? Beelzebub?”​Screwtape, shuffling his tale in the dust, cleared his throat, and sobbed. He was utterly alienated by every kind of demonic force in the realm. “Uh, I swear in the name of The Christ, whose paraclete has rescued the boy!” These utterances called for immediate adjournment for severe battering all over Screwtape’s slimy body. Official Eternally Record reads,

​Screwtape: Coward Weak PitifulAfter the beating recess, Screwtape testified, sniveling into shredded tissue; shocking the 3-judge panel by wailing that everyworm will bow and every forked tongue will confess the power of the One [who will remain nameless here]. Objections heralded all over the room, admonishing Screwtape to testify without swearing in. Screwtape wailed insisted that his testimony was the “truth. The whole truth; and nothing but the truth.”

VERBATIM TESTIMONY:

“I went there, to the boy, to set a trap for . . . I was so humiliated after . . . .

The boy saw me; and spoke directly to me. He had the influence of consecrated power. I. . . I. . . had to. . . answer him truthfully. There was no use fighting it . . . useless.

When the boy saw me, long forgotten technicalities and legalities were already set in motion. My world collided with the boy’s. The boy knew who I was. He said he’d seen a movie that explained people’s souls lived inside their bodies. Then he winked, pointed at me, and declared me an “animal demon”. I was powerless and referred to the dust by the boy, but not to hell! Someworm saved me from the dust, I don’t know who.

​ Screwtape was found guilty on all charges and will spend eternity in hell. His defense of eternal life went unacknowledged.

I'm currently enrolled in a doctoral seminar that met at Oxford University in England. The class explores communication styles of C.S. Lewis. This post, and others like it, are part of a writing assignment to create three contemporary Screwtape Letters. I hope you will take advantage of this unique view into the world where demons plot the demise of Those Who Love God. Enjoy!

​The occasion is the Annual Halloween Board Meeting of Powers and Rulers of Darkness. Screwtape, while monopolizing the stage, and spotlight, clears his throat into the squelching mic. Knife clangs against fine china to quiet the constant chatter of the smoke-filled room. Screwtape’s Declaration is uttered to the full legion: (1) honored dignitaries, seated in front, around magnificent tables; succulent dinner served on fine linen and crystal; (2) varying assortments of diabolical ventriloquists, enjoying cocktails in folding chairs occupying the middle chambers; (3) were-people, vampires and the undead cramp and standing in the back; and (4) summoned, potentially doomed minions, imps and knaves influencers, gnarled and moaning while chained to walls and floors of the gallery. As the whole room dims, a second spot light illuminates Wormwood, unrecognizable to his kin; standing alone, bound and shackled to the stage floor; the example for all to behold.

“HEAR YE, HEAR YE an indictment of formal charges is brought: The Declaration Against Wormwood The Imbecile, who's Polliwog Patient, progressed to wit:

Is, and has been from the beginning, particularly shocking in the content of his behavior, particularly his jokes.

Has reached the age of kinderkare, with daily torment of his mother, all his grandparents, neighbors, and family friends, for his whole life; and

Was recently expelled on his first day of school.

This very same kinder-kracken, because of extreme isolation and ostracism associated with past behavior, is now attempting to understand for the first time, his Kind Kinder Kit, which contains a Bible; determined to self-govern.Wormwood has been warned several times to be gradual and not excessive in his deployment of evil. But he willfully . . . [Screwtape points and extends his crooked finger and emphasizes ‘willfully’ three times] . . . Willfully pressed forward, with insubordination, away from sound instruction. Therefore I, Screwtape, Devil of Grandiose Power, have served indictment ballots, gathered proxies, and held the vote for the Institution of Burning Re-Orientation from Hell against Wormwood.[Several dignitaries rush the stage. . . scuffle in the mic... Screwtape fights for and controls the mic:]Challenged? …Decision challenged?! …Technicality?! … Well, it appears that … I haven't crossed and dotted the required T’s and I’s. … Wormwood, my dear boy, appears to have a small, uh, following . . . of . .. political admirers. … A resolution, that … uh I knew nothing about, has beenBrought, and Approved by this Board … Wormwood’s disposition will be revisited in the next cycle. Gavel Slams, lights out.

I'm currently enrolled in a doctoral seminar that met at Oxford University in England. The class explores communication styles of C.S. Lewis. This post, and those like it, are part of awriting assignment to create three contemporary Screwtape Letters. I hope you will take advantage of this unique view into the world where demons plot the demise of Those Who Love God. Enjoy!​​For a whole understanding of Screwtape Letters, click here:

32 - The Saga Continues

​My Dear Dear Wormwood,

​How utterly ironic for you, to be reassigned to a mere toddler . . . the child of your former debacle. You should find it both challenging and a blessing from down below. See to it that you learn from past error; and be quick to recognize those secret mannerisms the boy shares naturally with his father. These could be useful only as guiding principles, signifying what is important; be warned that biological traits can have a boomeranging effect! Take care: if the father enjoyed something fiercely, like alcohol or drugs, the boy may totally avoid the stuff. Be subtle. So, whatever the father had a propensity for, introduce an appetite for the primary substitute. If the father had a liking for fun-loving quick wit, introduce the boy to cavalier satire with a bite, show him humor and flippancy. Make small attempts to appoint the immoralities of the father to the son.

​Your former patient’s offspring, a polliwog in its early amphibian state, is still very "cold-blooded" and can be tempted to act in quite chilling ways; particularly his words. He can be easily taught to say the ghastliest things. I advise that you save enormous time and forego all the demanding work of teaching the boy bad vocabulary. You should cozy up to him right away, so that you two become kindred spirits from early on. Then teach him the concept of the “I”, and the “I want” immediately. These two words, used together, are the template for all destruction to come. Its simple, you just add the haughty-greed to the end. Start small. Try it, “I want ice cream.” “I want cake.” Money. Sex. Prestige. Image. . . These things and more follow the “I” and the “I want.” If implemented correctly, your Specimen will control his whole environment . . . . It will make him a monster. He will control the world.

Affectionately Yours,​Screwtape

This is a writing assignment for COM 785, CS Lewis & Friends​For a real understanding of this writing click here:

Normally I wouldn't ask you to think this hard because I want to entertain while we learn together. But this is important, so I found out The Real Deal With the 2016 Supreme Court Nominee. . . to tell you what all the fighting is about.Here's How It Started! – Here’s the steps

Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, 2016, vacating one of the nine seats in the United States Supreme Court.

After Scalia’s death, Republican legislators blocked President Obama's (a Democrat) nominee to that post, successfully stalling the nomination process for ten months until that president’s term is over.

In this way politicians strive to install their own choice in the Supreme Court position by winning the 2016 Presidential Election.

Here’s the Background

When Justice Scalia died, Democratic President Barack Obama (Feb. 14, 2016), announced that he planned to “fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.”

Judge Scalia was noted for being the most outspoken conservative voice; so he leaves the Court with a four/four split between judges who are conservation (Republican) and liberal (Democrat), (Savage, 13 Feb. 2016).

Garland, chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is respected across political party lines.

Nevertheless, Republicans blocked Judge Garland’s nomination, stalling the vote until a new president was elected into office; thus heightening Republican chances of replacing Scalia with a conservative voice to influence court rulings.

Time for President Obama’s nominee ran out in November with the 2016 election of Donald Trump as president-elect (Collinson, Liptak, et al., 16 Mar 2016).

President-Elect Donald Trump has vowed to select a name from his short list of nominees.

Garland’s name is not on the list.

Here’s the History

During the last sixty years, the Supreme Court appointment process has been a high-stakes political game that garners fierce interest group actions, highly charged media attention, and divided political party loyalties.

These party loyalties impact the president's ability to manage the selection process (Yalof, 2001).

Judicial independence is the principle requiring the judiciary, individually and as a whole, to work free of ideological influences (Burbank, 1998).

This means essentially two things: (1) that judges must be able to render decisions free from popular or political influence, basing decisions on the facts and relevant law; and (2) that the judiciary is a legal entity, completely separate from the legislative and executive branches of government (Geyh, 2013).

Deep History

The Court has historically been a highly unusual institution if for no other reason than because of America’s frequent ritual of simultaneous admittance and denial of the Court’s political powers (Dahl 1957).

The Court’s tenuous origin is a factor in the confusion since it was essentially designed as the least powerful branch of the American Federal government (Barbour & Streb, 2013).

Contrarily, the judicial appointment is a lifetime position. So designed in order to maintain the principle of judicial independence; making it possible for the Court, through individual justices, to impartially determine if congressional laws violate the Constitution (Barbour & Streb, 2013).

Legal scholars credit John Marshall, the fourth and longest serving Chief Justice of the Court, with cementing the Court’s co-equal status with congress by granting the Court judicial review.

Marshall thereafter made several decisions, during his 34 year tenure as chief justice, that strengthened the Court; forever changing the DNA of the young Republic by changing the nation’s balance of power.

Here’s What It Means

The principle of judicial review functions just as Justice John Marshall designed; therefore legislators jockey strongly for their own political choices in the jurist seats. Judicial review gives Congress a hidden agenda that average people don’t understand because the Court checks the Congress.

The implication is that judicial independence may exist after the nominee is approved.

Otherwise, the principle is dead and should either be buried or shocked backed to life.

In the struggle to control the nomination process for the next Supreme Court justice, D,C. politicians are locked in a fierce battle and will deploy any strategy, regardless of the consequences..

In the interim, the nation’s lawmaking was pulverized to mush.

Going Forward

President-Elect Trump has a list of 21 people from which he will draw names for all appointments he makes to the Court (Liptak, 14 Nov 2016).

Judge Garland’s name is not on the list.

The names on the list ring contrary to Washington’s status quo because these candidates come from (and have law degrees from) America’s Heartland, rather than the east coast Ivy Leaguers (Liptak, 14 Nov 2016).

Here are three examples of people on the list:

Robert Young. Since 1999, Judge Young has served as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan. His operational philosophy, called “textualist revolution,” is a philosophy of originalism shared by many in the judiciary. Judge Young is the highest African-American official serving the State of Michigan (Young, 2010); but is an Ivy Leaguer since he graduated from Harvard Law School.

Margaret A. Ryan. Since 2006, Judge Ryan has served as judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. She received her law degree from Notre Dame and served in the Judge Advocate General of the United States Marine Corp, and was deployed in the Philippines and Gulf War. Judge Ryan has clerked for two judges in the past, one of whom is Justice Clarence Thomas.

Amul Thapar. Since 2007, Judge Thapar has served as a judge in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar has an extensive vitae that includes tenures as (1) Assistant U.S. Attorney in Washington, DC; (2) Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Ohio. He is the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judge Thapar graduated law school for the University of California, Berkeley. Amul Thapar is of Southeast Asian descent.

Trump (2016).Here’s What God Says

Ephesian 6:12 warns those who love God that we are not fighting against fleshly creatures, but against (1) principalities, (2) powers, (3) rulers of the darkness of the world, (4) spiritual wickedness in high places.

These four are the creatures against whom this struggle;

not Democrats or Republicans,

not liberals or conservatives,

not Jews or Gentiles,

not Greeks or Ethiopians,

not elephants or giraffes,

or any other fleshly creations.

Against the four creatures mention above, we are instructed to enlist truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, and the word of God as the weapons of choice.

You’ve got the info; now you be the judge.Selah.

​

Author​

Myrna Roberts is a third year doctoral student at Regent University, stuying in the field of Communications/ Strategic Communications

The Proverbs 31 Community: For this 3rd episode of Visiting Church, Professor Rhonda Ragsdale continues with the ideas of self-governance and community with evangelist, storyteller, writer, and poet Myrna Roberts. Roberts speaks of community concepts as a scholar of communication, but she also brings a black towns perspective. Her family members were established residents of Tatums, Oklahoma, and she spent many weekends and summers enjoying the physical and psychological refuge of the historically black town.

This discussion between Professor Rhonda Ragsdale and Myrna Roberts is a continuation of our last broadcast contrasting the differences between government in historically black towns verses the government that has been put in place FOR black people by the American governmental systems.Myrna Roberts describes citizenship, police, and government. She gives entertaining stories about community building and interpersonal governmental relationships among family members.

Author

​These podcasts and blog letters are about subjects that only your mother will discuss with you. While I plan to always be polite, I will probably not be politically correct. I'm simply concerned about my children because some of their habits are scary.